Results 1 to 5 of 5

Thread: OpenCarry.org joins amicus brief in lawsuit to protect privacy of gun carry licenses

  1. #1
    Moderator / Administrator
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    8,711

    OpenCarry.org joins amicus brief in lawsuit to protect privacy of gun carry licenses

    Petition to the Court at http://princelaw.files.wordpress.com...ssociation.pdf

    http://blog.princelaw.com

    SNIP

    On August 7th, the Pennsylvania Sheriffs’ Association, which represents 67 county sheriffs in Pennsylvania, filed a Petition for Leave to Participate Amicus Curiae in support of Perry County Sheriff Nace, in the matter of Barbara Hench, et al. v. Sheriff Carl Nace, 2014-454. The Petition and accompanying brief is joined by some 41 Federal and State Congressional Representatives and pro-Second Amendment organizations [including OpenCarry.org] . . .

    Some interesting points are:
    1.The PA Sheriff Association agrees with our Preliminary Objections that the Perry County Auditors are not acting within their official scope, as they are requesting that Sheriff Nace violate the law.
    2.They correctly argue that even if the Perry County Auditors aren’t public, the information still cannot be disclosed to them because they are not “criminal justice agencies.”
    3.They suggest that numbers could be utilized, in lieu of names and addresses, to identify the applicants.
    4.They cite to our proposed settlement in John Doe, et al v. City of Philadelphia, et al.

    I have a feeling that this week will be full of news about this litigation…Stay tuned

    . . .

  2. #2
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    I disagree ... they are public records and should be open to the public.

    The focus should be to eliminate the need for any permission slips.

  3. #3
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,616
    Quote Originally Posted by davidmcbeth View Post
    I disagree ... they are public records and should be open to the public.

    The focus should be to eliminate the need for any permission slips.
    Tell that to the woman who does not wish to be found by her abusive ex.

    I've seen the result of a failed protective order - it wasn't pretty, but it did eliminate the need for it
    You will not rise to the occasion; you will fall back on your level of training.” Archilochus, 650 BC

    Old and treacherous will beat young and skilled every time. Yata hey.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    301
    ...what other legitimate reason could the auditors have for wanting the info which the Sheriff withheld other than auditing/accounting for the money tendered with the applications....which has already been accounted for by an audit without a problem being found...and no sensitive information was released(as the law stipulates)...

  5. #5
    Regular Member Lord Sega's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Warrenton, Oregon
    Posts
    317
    I noticed in the linked Amicus brief (attach A) that they make the point about any Sheriff that "furnishes information collected or maintained pursuant to section 6109" would be committing felony of the third degree.

    Now, IANAL, but it also states the same penalty for "Any person, ...[snip] who knowingly and intentionally obtains" the same info.
    By my reading the auditors would also be committing felony of the third degree, not just the Sheriffs.
    And I would assume that for both it is one count per document furnished or obtained.

    § 6111. Sale or transfer of firearms
    (g) Penalties
    (3.1) Any person, licensed dealer, licensed manufacturer or licensed importer who knowingly and intentionally obtains or furnishes information collected or maintained pursuant to section 6109 for any purpose other than compliance with this chapter or who knowingly or intentionally disseminates, publishes or otherwise makes available such information to any person other than the subject of the information commits a felony of the third degree. [bold and color mine]

    So how many forms under 6109 times min/max penalty for 3rd degree felony equals how much in fines and/or jail time?
    Anyone have contacts with the Pennsylvania Sheriffs’ Association? They may want to amend the Amicus brief.
    Last edited by Lord Sega; 08-10-2014 at 03:51 PM.
    "Guns are not the problem … crazy is the problem” ... “We cannot legislate our society to the craziest amongst us.” - Jon Stewart
    “I do not love the bright sword for it's sharpness, nor the arrow for it's swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend." - Tolkien

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •